The archetype is a symbolic formula which always begins to function when there are no conscious ideas present, or when conscious ideas are inhibited for internal or external reasons. The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced preferences and definite ways of looking at things. These subjective tendencies and views are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object -- incorrectly, since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche and are merely released by the effect of the object. They are stronger than the object's influence, their psychic value is higher, so that they superimpose themselves on all impressions.

Life as an art seems to be a search for one's own pattern -- for identity through things found to be a "mirroring" of the "self" -- semi-recognizable patterns, visual or otherwise, with an inherent and somewhat perplexing "amnesia" attached to them.

On Salvadore Dali and Jung:

Horoscopic Expressionism:
The "Patterned" Psyche
Archetype as "Formula"
Surrealism as a source of material for the astrologer:
Salvadore Dali
May 11, 1904 8:45 AM GMT
Figueras, Spain, 02E58 42N16
Lois Rodden data AA B.C. (from Birth Certificate)

Art-Philosophy-Psychology...In for penny , in for a pound:

If, as I suspect, the universe is one of mind, then Astrology is a means to participate in the generalizing, intuitive function of mind. Intuition is probably at the root of all occult experience and the very basis of our ability to to adapt, to socialize appropriately (if only unconsciously) according to the needs of a given environ. The extreme emphasis on regimented socialization should, by necessity of balance, drive many people to re-link with the generalizing, abstract organization of mind: a socially imposed reduction of symbols to icons, signs, or sterile images to be accepted on the basis of mere authority, might actually trigger an anxiety in order to prevent the atrophy of an individual's mundanely enabling intuition.

Here are two paragraphs to which I would (perhaps naively) point and say, here is what Jung has to offer:

The psychic structure is the same as what Semon calls 'mneme' and what I call the 'collective unconscious.' The individual self is a portion or a segment or representative of something present in all living creatures, an exponent of the specific mode of psychological behaviour which varies from species to species and is inborn in each of its members. The inborn mode of acting has long been known as instinct, and for the inborn mode of psychic apprehension I have proposed the term archetype. I may assume that what is understood by instinct is familiar to everyone. It is another matter with the achetype. What I understand by it is identical with the "primordial image," a term borrowed from Jacob Burckhardt, and I desribe it as such in the Definitions that conclude this book. I must here refer the reader to the definition of image.

The archetype is a symbolic formula which always begins to function when there are no conscious ideas present, or when conscious ideas are inhibited for internal or external reasons. The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced preferences and definite ways of looking at things. These subjective tendencies and views are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object -- incorrectly, since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche and are merely released by the effect of the object. They are stronger than the object's influence, their psychic value is higher, so that they superimpose themselves on all impressions.

[C. G. Jung, The Portable Jung, edited by Joseph Campbell, pp.232-233]

Life as an art seems to be a search for one's own pattern -- for identity through things found to be a "mirroring" of the self -- semi-recognizable patterns, visual or otherwise, with an inherent and somewhat perplexing "amnesia" attached to them. So, I also like to point out that dream interpretaion seems quite central to Jung because of this part of the quote above:

The archetype is a symbolic formula which always begins to function when there are no conscious ideas present, or when conscious ideas are inhibited for internal or external reasons.

"Persistence of Memory" and "Metamorphosis of Narcissus"

Salvadore Dali's "Persistence of Memory," the one with the droopy pocket watches hanging about, is probably the most famous surrealistic painting. It addresses something akin to Darwinian evolution (and it is a self-portrait). His "Metamorphosis of Narcissus" (large) seems an attempt to graphically depict a shift from simple vanity to a more transcendent search for self as a "mirrored" Jungian "formula". The latter seems more personal and more universal at the same time. It appears that both works are attempts at self-expression but "Persistence" indulges in a bit of cartooned iconography while "Metamorphosis" seems more an exhibition of a personal recognition of Jung's "formula" idea. This is great art, to me, and the planets of Dali's natal chart are best projected here.

Dali places a penetrating safety pin shape through the top of an egg-shaped solid: the shape and position of these objects parallels or imitates the head of a complete human figure on the left side of this painting. This seemed obvious to me, perhaps only to me, but a formal "=" sign is all that seems missing between the left side of the painting and the right side of the painting. It appears to me as an algebraic form of "self-expression." If we employ the planet/aspect symbols of astrology as common "language" on a type of Rosetta Stone, then Mars conjunct Mercury and Sun = a safety pin piercing the top of an egg-shape in such a way as to also extend from the "head" like an old television's rabbit-eared antenna. (This is consistent with the assemblage of similar objects in drawings by children, concerning this planet/aspect formula.)

The relative position of the "head" is definitely a parallel of Dali's natal Sun in House 11 (a clockface position of about 10 o'clock, visually). It is as though this placement is one of the visual cues in Dali's world which "mirrors" Jungs "formula" notion of the archetype

To quote Jung again, "The archetype is a symbolic formula which always begins to function when there are no conscious ideas present...."

Archetype, here, would not necessarily apply merely to the alchemical formulas which are the planet symbols, but more like to the whole of the natal chart as the "formula" -- a symbol crudely mapping a structured psyche with some notion of "parts" assembled in a certain way. As Jung continues above, "The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced preferences and definite ways of looking at things." I would add here, definite ways of "making things look a certain way" -- the act of projection-vs-perception.

In "Metamorphosis," Dali presents two instances of patterned forms. Each I assume to represent some idea about the material form, or the psychic form, of man; or a man, or himself. So, is he representing an individual idea of selfhood? Could be. Is this painting perhaps an expression of his personalized collective unconscious? Jung might say this is most likely. It is probably an imperfect graphing or charting of his Jungian use of archetype as"formula." Because Dali could be considered highly socialized, his reality as an adult in western society is always likely to include something in the nature of a compromise for the sake of effective communication. A rule of the painter's thumb, here, is probably sure to include equal potions of personal mythic material and icons with social context as "hints" or "signposts" to the more popularly accepted or classically "correct" metaphors, etc. Even though his depiction is a specialized one, it has probably been created as though Dali had a good portion of universal material on his palette, but a lot of rather ordinary social context need be referred to in order to identify his work as professional, commercial enteprise.

It could be that all human activity is a form of "self" portraiture -- a transcendent yet narcissistic search for one's reflection -- one's own specialized pattern within the field of the collective's infinite possibilities. This "field" may be the field of our vision at any given moment and for the psyche it may truly be a case of "what you see is what you get" -- our whole response to sense-oriented life may be a search for actual images which stimulate us to respond with a judgment -- "like me : not like me." The path to selfhood may be an artistic participation in life as performer, critic, and collector who learns to identify the archetype of "self" as "formula," learning as we do according to behaviorists by successive approximations.

An Afterthought:

I find the above desription of archetype as "formula" an inspired starting point; and this formula-with-no-name seems unlimited in its potential use as a type of solvent in the analysis of the collected symbols I call my "self." Though this idea is fortunately available to me as a starting point, I note that the above writing appears in 1921, some 17 to 18 years into Jung's opus of collected works: this rather fundemental notion seems to have "popped up" as an instantaneous synthesis of long considered experiences (and it is also Jung's premise that all states of the psyche are the products of many years of living, "half a lifetime" is not uncommon he said). This founding principle may have been an impulsive 'Neptunian' act, as it finds itself not as a title or a chapter heading, but, rather, it seems a treasure buried in the subheading above: perhaps dreamed up on the very moment of this writing...maybe not. Perhaps a Jungian scholar will set me straight on this point as I am little lazy at the thought of searching the previous 18 years of Jung's writing.

This sweeping, vague notion of archetype as formula would be a good candidate as a parallel expression of Jung's natal Saturn square Pluto (90 degrees apart -- suggesting a piling of ideas as evidence: as one piles bricks). It becomes very easy to view Dali's surrealistic paintings as a search for archetype as "formula," "Metamorphosis of Narcissus" as the product of Dali's Saturn trine Pluto (120 degrees apart -- suggesting forms as created by the process of an instantaneous, mutual infusion of ideas). The reported difference of the square aspect vs the trine aspect indeed seems appropriately conceived because Dali's dream-like themes, unlike Jung's, are conjured into tangible objects, and not a Jungian compilation of intangibles. The reported "easy as 1, 2, 3" nature of trine aspects is probably consistent with my thinking of Dali's "forms" as being much more immediate in their accessability and a lot less weighty than even The Portable Jung.

Rog
(Pedantus...;-) October, 1996

[Menu] [Home]
Roger L. Satterlee roger9@ix.netcom.com